Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

I like to think that I have an okay understanding of how my computer works. When quantum computing becomes mainstream a computer will truly be a mystical device with magical power, but I'll still just use mine to play sudoku while I'm on the bus.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. But it is not magic.
Moral of the story?
There is no such thing as magic.

"All A is B" does not prove "All B is A".

The fact that you might find some advanced technology that will allow you to turn water into wine doesn't mean that when I do it it isn't magic, only that when YOU do it it isn't. Magic is the process, not the end result.

There is currently technology that will take elemental carbon and produce diamonds in the laboratory. That doesn't mean that every diamond on the planet was produced in a laboratory.

I didn't say they were. What I said is that the existance of a "sufficiently advanced technology" doesn't prove that diamonds cannot be produced in any other way. Diamonds are an example not because I think they are produced by "magic", but because the technological source doesn't prove anything about any other source in such an obvious way that I didn't think I'd have to answer ridiculous claims that I thought they were all magic.

Note we're talking about condensed matter physics here, so this isn't the discovery of a fundamental particle that is a Majorana fermion, just a composite particle (similar to a Cooper pair) that appears to behave like a Majorana fermion. I'm sure this is an exciting discovery, but I tend to get more excited about fundamental particle discoveries.

BTW, maybe someone can enlighten me further, but since neutrinos have mass wouldn't they probably have to be Majorana fermion? You could catch up to a neutrino and make it appear as right-handed in some reference frame which would presumably make it's anti-matter right-handed counterpart? Neutrinoless double-beta decay is what would confirm that, right?

Yes, neutinoless double-beta decay is the smoking gun for Majorana neutrinos. However, there is no good theoretical reason for neutrinos to be Majorana; they should be Dirac particles, just like every other fermion in existence. It's one of those things that isn't ruled out by experiment yet and gets certain kinds of model-builders all excited.

On the one hand, everybody thought parity was a good symmetry when P-breaking was not ruled out by experiment, and the discover of parity-breaking was fundamental to

This is not a discovery of real elementary particle, instead it is a quasiparticle. It behaves (in its quantum properties) like Majorana Fermions, much in the same way a "hole" in a semiconductor behaves like a positively charged particle.

this is probably the first time they heard of Majorana Fermions. In a bit you'll see visits to wikipedia spiking and suddenly everyone's an expert on Majorana Fermions. For the rest who can't be bothered to understand the topic, they'll joke about Marijuana and what not.

I may or may not have butchered this, but I think its better than googles. All edits from original google translation are mine, as are any omissions.

--

Since 1937, physicists in Delft have sought to observe evidence of Majorana fermions, a fundamental particle whose properties may soon be used in quantum supercomputing.

Recently, Delft physicists have claimed to be the first to create this exotic new elementary particle, showing in addition how it can play a key role in the supercomputer of the future. They made their discovery not in a giant particle accelerator, but at the intersection of superconducting nanowires on a chip.

Prof. Leo Kouwenhoven, who made the discovery, announced the results at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society (APS). The news caused a wave of excitement among the thousands of present physicists. A reporter of the weekly Nature likened the situation to a busy train station during rush hour.

"Have we seen Majorana fermions? I'd say a cautious 'yes'", stated Kouwenhoven at the end of his presentation in Boston. Other physicists said that the Delft measurements cannot be explained other than by the presence of a Majorana-like particle.

The results have been published in the journal "Physical Review Letters". The so-called Majorana-fermion is one of the strangest elementary particles that physicists know, at least on paper. The possible existence was predicted in 1937 by the Italian physicist Ettore Majorana (1906-1938). Since then, physicists have looked everywhere for natural Majorana particles, but without success. Several years ago, attention was shifted to the observable effects in some solids which Majorana particles would create.

The Delft group found the first indications of the Majorana particles at the ends of a partially superconducting microscopic thread of indium antimonide. Kouwenhoven has long been investigating such nanowires -- last year he received a grant of one million dollars of software maker Microsoft for his quest for the artificial-Majorana fermion. Even physics financier FOM put up one million.

Microsoft's interest stems from the possibility of computer memory with Majorana particles. Such a computer would not use 1 or 0 bit states; Instead, it will use quantum bits, which facilitate much more computation. The problem with such a quantum computer is that quantum bits are sensitive to disturbances. Pairs of Majorana particles form an exception. They can be disrupted, but owing to their special mathematical properties, they always spring back to their original state. That is a desired property for a robust quantum memory system.

In the research, each memory element comprises a nanowire of indium-arsenide in which two electrodes with the underlying quasi-particles produce so-called Majorana's. These are not sensitive to external disturbances causing an internal conditions change. The two Majorana on each of the elements form together a qubit. Qubits are the ones and zeros which allow a quantum computer to carry out numerous calculations simultaneously, instead of all the calculation steps one by one, as in conventional computers.

They are fermions so {a,a+}=1 not [a,a+]=1 because fermions obey anti-commutation relations due to the spin commutation rule (spin 1/2 particles anti-commute while spin 1 and spin0 particles commute...

For fermions, the canonical commutation relations must use the anticommutator: {a,b} = ab + ba. The Majorana fermion is a fermion. But, that doesn't completely answer your question, since you could correctly apply your reasoning to bosons which are their own antiparticle, like the photon, to claim that [a,a+]=0. But you have to keep in mind that the antiparticle of a photon is time-reversed compared to that photon - a+ and a are still distinct.

It depends on the Hamiltonian. But, you can calculate it in the following way for some systems you are familiar with:
Let a+ and a be creation/annihilation operators for your (non-Majorana) fermion. You can define new operators, which obey the commutation relation for fermions: b = (a+ + a)/2 and b' = (a+ - a)/2i. But both of these operators satisfy bi = bi+, so the quasiparticles on which these operators act are Majorana fermions. If you want the position representation for b or b', you just need the p

Aaaaaa, ooooooo. EEEEEEE. Look at all the different sounds! Wababababa! I just discovered another one! Let's publish a paper!

To a mind that actually understands how it all works this is what it must seem like we are doing...

There is no such thing as "atom", or Top Down Construction.

Everything is one of 4 Elements: Earth Wind Fire Water -- No, that was wrong, we discovered Atoms! Atoms are indivisible, atomic, structures that make up matter via molecular bonds. No, wait, atoms are made of still smaller somethings... Electrons and Protons and Neutrons... Ah, but there are still smaller particles than those, Quarks! And thos

No, because they don't. The mass of avagadro's number of carbon 12 atoms is the same - 12 grams - everywhere. The weight might differ due to G not being constant across earth but that's not exactly news either. And if atomic weights did depend on where you are in space, there's be all kinds of zomgwtf effects that would've been seen a long time ago.

For a moment I felt I was in one of those Star Trek TNG episodes where the plot advances thanks to an ad hoc particle/field that can be polarity-reversed. Usually the particle/field in question was seldom, or never mentioned later.
Talk of science imitating art.

This is old news. When I was at Deltares a couple of years ago, they had three or four mating pairs of Majorana Fermions swimming in the pool near their main offices. I don't think they were spotted, though. They were speckled.

That's pretty close to TU Delft, so maybe the ones TU Delft has found are one of the pairs from Deltares?